I don't want to tell you what you need to do. But I think dashboard lighting is something that makes sense when it's nighttime. And nighttime is planned for the dev version with graphics and physics. And probably it will look different with the new shaders and bloom effect and that will have to change again. Specially if its not easy to implement. So maybe it's better to do the dashboard lighting on the development version?
😆
Keep coping and following my posts.
Keep coping and following my posts.
I pointed out at the end of my comment that all my questions were rhetorical except one. That is, I only asked you to answer one question and I again got a huge longread of thesis substitutions and all the other logical fallacies I listed earlier. I don't know why you would waste so much time if you could just answer one question. But this time you were quoting to what you were answering. Even though there were no substantive answers there, it already shows that you are capable of responding in a structured way.
Instead, you decided to make another meaningless statement while referring to logic and not understanding the essence of my question. (or deliberately not answering) There is no logical formalisation according to formal semantics in your quote. And there's not even a logial inference there.
Again you don't understand what logic is. And you're making up your own. So you're just arbitrarily using words.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. A statement in mathematical logic is a sentence expressing a judgement. If the statement is true, it is said to be true if the judgement that constitutes the content (meaning) of a certain statement.Similarly, a statement that is an expression of a false judgement is called false. The truth and falsity are called the logical, or truth values of statements. A statement must be a narrative sentence, and is contrasted with imperative, question, and any other sentence whose truth or falsity cannot be evaluated.
In terms of the depth of analysis of statements, a distinction is made between the logic of statements, or propositional logic, and First-order logic, which includes quantifier theories. Unlike the logic of predicates, the logic of statements studies types of reasoning that do not depend on the internal structure of simple sentences. First-order predicate logic is extended by higher-order logics. I would credit your answer if you answered within the framework of any of these logics. But instead you just don't understand what you are talking about and you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use as usual.
I would have counted your answer as correct if you had simply reduced logic to the generally recognisable Aristotelian laws of logic, even if it was a very outdated and primitive understanding of logic. But you didn't even do that. You apparently don't even know about the 4 laws of logic, since you have constantly violated them. In particular, the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason.
You have substituted the concept as usual. This continues in the rest of your replies to me, like on this example. I think we should agree to disagree so we don't waste each other's time anymore.
Instead, you decided to make another meaningless statement while referring to logic and not understanding the essence of my question. (or deliberately not answering) There is no logical formalisation according to formal semantics in your quote. And there's not even a logial inference there.
Again you don't understand what logic is. And you're making up your own. So you're just arbitrarily using words.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. A statement in mathematical logic is a sentence expressing a judgement. If the statement is true, it is said to be true if the judgement that constitutes the content (meaning) of a certain statement.Similarly, a statement that is an expression of a false judgement is called false. The truth and falsity are called the logical, or truth values of statements. A statement must be a narrative sentence, and is contrasted with imperative, question, and any other sentence whose truth or falsity cannot be evaluated.
In terms of the depth of analysis of statements, a distinction is made between the logic of statements, or propositional logic, and First-order logic, which includes quantifier theories. Unlike the logic of predicates, the logic of statements studies types of reasoning that do not depend on the internal structure of simple sentences. First-order predicate logic is extended by higher-order logics. I would credit your answer if you answered within the framework of any of these logics. But instead you just don't understand what you are talking about and you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use as usual.
I would have counted your answer as correct if you had simply reduced logic to the generally recognisable Aristotelian laws of logic, even if it was a very outdated and primitive understanding of logic. But you didn't even do that. You apparently don't even know about the 4 laws of logic, since you have constantly violated them. In particular, the law of identity and the law of sufficient reason.
You have substituted the concept as usual. This continues in the rest of your replies to me, like on this example. I think we should agree to disagree so we don't waste each other's time anymore.
Yes this patch is already good enough, you can just publish it that would be functional for all players to fully switch to the development version with graphics and physics. I think it would be better for everyone. Thank for your work!
It's true, I also don't suggest many things, because the developed update with graphics and physics is much more important, and should be a priority imao.
So you keep the dialogue going. Okay. But why if you're not answering to my thesis? To make even more substitutes for my theses with your own and demolish them. Convenient.
As usual you don't respond to anything I've said. But unlike you, I don't do that.
And I have a superpower that you don't have. I can respond to an opponent's thesis.
Can you give the logical formula for this statement? Either you don't understand anything about logic, which means you're talking bullshit (as you showed earlier).
And I question any sources, especially those that are not subject to any verification and falsification. But as my quote says, this source contains conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence. (strong or weak) any probabilistic conclusion is an inductive argument.
How come I can't access it if you provided the links yourself. Let's say you don't want to understand what I'm writing to you. But do you even understand what you're writing?
I've already said that it only contains probability conclusions. Which is a reduction to induction.
You're talking about yourself. I have often noticed in the course of the dialogue that you like to project your mistakes onto others. That's exactly what's happening now.
I didn't say anything about that, it's another thesis of yours that you substitute for the logical fallacy I mentioned in your other yours theses. It is convenient to do this when you do not respond to the theses of the interlocutor, but invent something of your own.
And saying that something is the "most probable" is an inductive argument. Again...
Yes, and that's why you call a man that you know nothing about a child who needs to go back to school..It's very responsible and humble and there's nothing personal about it.
You lie and commit thesis substitutions (strawmen), appeal to authority and majority as an argument, and others such logical fallacies that I pointed out earlier.
At the same time when you were talking complete rubbish I still tried to respond to you with respect. But if you don't want to communicate with respect, why should I? But I'm still trying, though. I find it harder each time I respond to disrespect with respect.
Ohhh... This means that you don't have to answer the interlocutor's questions and theses. You can instead make up your own and answer them. I see how that works for you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it. I consider it a matter of respect in a discussion to respond to questions and to specific thesis.
You yourself mention probabilistic inference and logic here. In the same comment you talk about "kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments" You're the one talking about deduction and induction here. What is wrong with you? Or do you not understand at all what you are talking about?
Once again, you are once again dissing your own knowledge of philosophy.
Inductive argument is an assertion that uses assumptions or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty which leads to probabilistic conclusions. They are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from known premises is true.
Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Premises are offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
In other words reasoning by induction are assessed as strong or weak - as more or less probable.
And deduction as valid or invalid - as in formal logic.
That is you yourself constantly talk about logic, but you never make any logical deductions yourself and only make attempts at inductive arguments. Which is what I keep pointing out. Which makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Over and over again. All questions except the first about the logical formula are rhetorical. I still give you a chance to prove that you understand what you are talking about and I will try not to make any unambiguous conclusions in advance. But answering questions and my theses is what is hard to expect from you.
As usual you don't respond to anything I've said. But unlike you, I don't do that.
And I have a superpower that you don't have. I can respond to an opponent's thesis.
Can you give the logical formula for this statement? Either you don't understand anything about logic, which means you're talking bullshit (as you showed earlier).
And I question any sources, especially those that are not subject to any verification and falsification. But as my quote says, this source contains conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence. (strong or weak) any probabilistic conclusion is an inductive argument.
How come I can't access it if you provided the links yourself. Let's say you don't want to understand what I'm writing to you. But do you even understand what you're writing?
I've already said that it only contains probability conclusions. Which is a reduction to induction.
You're talking about yourself. I have often noticed in the course of the dialogue that you like to project your mistakes onto others. That's exactly what's happening now.
I didn't say anything about that, it's another thesis of yours that you substitute for the logical fallacy I mentioned in your other yours theses. It is convenient to do this when you do not respond to the theses of the interlocutor, but invent something of your own.
And saying that something is the "most probable" is an inductive argument. Again...
Yes, and that's why you call a man that you know nothing about a child who needs to go back to school..It's very responsible and humble and there's nothing personal about it.
You lie and commit thesis substitutions (strawmen), appeal to authority and majority as an argument, and others such logical fallacies that I pointed out earlier.
At the same time when you were talking complete rubbish I still tried to respond to you with respect. But if you don't want to communicate with respect, why should I? But I'm still trying, though. I find it harder each time I respond to disrespect with respect.
Ohhh... This means that you don't have to answer the interlocutor's questions and theses. You can instead make up your own and answer them. I see how that works for you.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see it. I consider it a matter of respect in a discussion to respond to questions and to specific thesis.
You yourself mention probabilistic inference and logic here. In the same comment you talk about "kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments" You're the one talking about deduction and induction here. What is wrong with you? Or do you not understand at all what you are talking about?
Once again, you are once again dissing your own knowledge of philosophy.
Inductive argument is an assertion that uses assumptions or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty which leads to probabilistic conclusions. They are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from known premises is true.
Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Premises are offered to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
In other words reasoning by induction are assessed as strong or weak - as more or less probable.
And deduction as valid or invalid - as in formal logic.
That is you yourself constantly talk about logic, but you never make any logical deductions yourself and only make attempts at inductive arguments. Which is what I keep pointing out. Which makes it clear you don't know what you're talking about. Over and over again. All questions except the first about the logical formula are rhetorical. I still give you a chance to prove that you understand what you are talking about and I will try not to make any unambiguous conclusions in advance. But answering questions and my theses is what is hard to expect from you.
Speak for yourself. If you are done with the dialogue then don't mention and dont lie about me.
Why are you always so fond of substituting what others tell you? Why not just respond to actual theses or questions, and making up strawmans instead?
I never said what I'm saying "scientific truth" Whatever that means.
On AGW, I was just saying that it's the most likely, but we don't have definitive proof of AGW.
On the dangers of GW in the future. All I said was that I don't have enough data to accurately predict the future. But you know exactly what the future holds. And that's what concerns me. And that's it. Stop lying about what I'm saying.
All you're offering at best (when you're not lying, or making logical fallacies which happens quite a lot in this thread apparently by excellent philosophical education) is an attempt to make an inductive argument. All I'm saying is that an inductive argument is not necessarily true. Only a deductive argument is have truth value.
I don't understand what you're talking about, if you're talking about tidal forces from the moon, then the fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth just reduces those forces.
Yes, Tidal forces do not only operate in ocean waters. Tidal waves are also formed in the Earth's crust and mantle. But due to the intractability of the Earth's crust, the amplitude of these "solid" waves is much lower than the amplitude of ocean tidal waves, and their length, on the contrary, is many thousands of kilometres. So the "solid" tidal waves run in the Earth's crust with almost no resistance, and the associated braking moment of forces (and the resulting deceleration of the Earth and acceleration of the Moon) is much smaller.
So I don't see how moving the moon away from the earth can generate more heat, rather the opposite. But it's a very long process. And which is unlikely to be synchronised with existing global warming.
In fact, the Earth is not a perfect sphere. Because of diurnal rotation it is flattened at the poles; the heights of the continents are different, the shape of the surface is distorted by tidal deformations.
So if there were no tides now, the shape of the Earth is still not perfectly spherical. If the Earth were entirely covered by an ocean and not subject to the tidal effects of other celestial bodies and other such disturbances, it would have the shape of a geoid. In reality, the Earth's surface can vary considerably from geoid in different places. To better approximate the surface, the concept of a reference ellipsoid is introduced, which coincides well with the geoid only at some part of the surface. Geometric parameters of reference ellipsoids differ from those of the average terrestrial ellipsoid, which describes the Earth's surface as a whole.
I have a question. Does LFS have rider weight control on the bikes? In reality, rider leans to better pass the corner. We've had a bit of an argument on social media. Some people think that the non-visual leaning of the rider happens in sync with the steering axes. Some people think there's no rider weight control in the LFS.
And if it's not there, then why not?
And if it is, can it be optionally made into a separate control?
And also add forward/backward leaning for stunts.
And if it's not there, then why not?
And if it is, can it be optionally made into a separate control?
And also add forward/backward leaning for stunts.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Bike handling has changed a lot, before I could not really ride bikes, I was constantly falling, at low speeds there was a wobble, and now even I can go fast. The controls now are much easier, and more predictable, thank you! Great bike update!
But overall it was amusing to watch a man who presents himself as a philosopher talk rubbish about Occam's Razor. It was clear from the way he put it in out of place that the person did not understand what he was talking about. I even set up one test and purposely gave him the opportunity to break down his argument with the usual deductive arguments. But it wasn't noticed. I didn't expect otherwise, though.
All I'm saying is that people should at least try to follow the rules of argumentation and make deductive arguments, not reduce everything they have to induction. I think anyone who has taken philosophy 101 (or any basic philosophy course) understands the problem of induction and that only deductive arguments are valid.
I urge you all to raise the level of discourse to an adequate level that assumes at least some reasoning behind what you are saying.
All I'm saying is that people should at least try to follow the rules of argumentation and make deductive arguments, not reduce everything they have to induction. I think anyone who has taken philosophy 101 (or any basic philosophy course) understands the problem of induction and that only deductive arguments are valid.
I urge you all to raise the level of discourse to an adequate level that assumes at least some reasoning behind what you are saying.
I'm not even going to start reading this longread, because as I said earlier you can't provide arguments and maintain an adequate level of discourse and apparently all you can do is stoop to appeals to personality and\or insults.
I was talking about only your false statement and I have clearly proven why it is false. This is exactly what the believers in the inevitable prediction of a terrible future in this topic are unable to do. Prove your own statements or prove others' statements false. All I see here are empty theses without any proof in this thread.
In order for us to understand each other, we need to formulate our thoughts correctly. Otherwise, instead of dialogue, you get nonsense.
I've already noticed that you like to substitute your thesis. And to argue with and defeat a straw man that you made up yourself. But why you do it in literally every post you make? Isn't it more interesting to argue with the theses of your opponents? And the fact that you also substitute the thesis of all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for didn't bother you at all. Well, either you did it deliberately
1. Let's start with the fact that no one has denied the advances of science. Nor has anyone denied global warming in this thread.
2. Theory does not equal practice. Graphs, correlations and predictions of the future do not equal a working and functioning system in reality. Do you know what the Law of identity is? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be talking such nonsense.
3. Doubt is first and foremost what scientists themselves do, and that is why they verify and falsify their claims, hypotheses and theories. Read what scientific scepticism is. But when it comes to climate change, suddenly everyone is an expert. Who know exactly what's going to happen in the future.
But I don't know. If you're such great fortune tellers. Tell me, for example, which lottery ticket to buy to win a lot of money.
looks great! Feel free if you want to show more
What about new layout objects?
As I understand it, they don’t need a dev patch with graphics and physics in order to fully work, can they be added to this test patch?
As I understand it, they don’t need a dev patch with graphics and physics in order to fully work, can they be added to this test patch?
No problem, and it's exactly the kind of principle I can support if it's an existential threat to humanity. You can see where I defend this in another thread. But right now I don't see how global warming can be an existential threat to humanity, even if the bad scenarios of current predictions come true.
Gutholz, I recommend using more correct phrasing, otherwise we can reach a lot of strange conclusions that way.
You realize that this statement is unprecedented and too broad? And it's too easy to disprove. It makes me wonder how you make such claim.
I'll start by assuming that since we're talking about global warming, we're talking about the earth. (although your statement doesn't specify that)
And if we are saying that the "earth never before have temperatures changed so rapidly" then why do you provide a link to graph that only account for 22,000 years?
The Earth has been around for billions of years, and you're saying "never before have temperatures changed so rapidly".
For example, researchers consider that Dino-Killing Asteroid Impact Warmed Earth's Climate about 4.5- to 5-degree [C, or 8.1 to 9 degrees F] change in average temperature for 100,000 Years.
This change is higher than it is now. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
But I hope you just worded your thought incorrectly and meant the last 20,000 years, which I can agree with. But 20k years is nothing compared to the entire history of the earth.
And that's even worse.. Your linked article contrasts human emissions only with volcanic emissions. No other non-human emissions are in question there.
And you refer to my quote where I talk about the comparison of human emissions and all non-human emissions. And for all non-human emissions you substitute volcanic activity, which is a clear substitution of the thesis.
Even if we're only talking about carbon dioxide emissions (and there's a lot more going into greenhouse gases) there 42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You substituted all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for. That's not correct.
You realize that this statement is unprecedented and too broad? And it's too easy to disprove. It makes me wonder how you make such claim.
I'll start by assuming that since we're talking about global warming, we're talking about the earth. (although your statement doesn't specify that)
And if we are saying that the "earth never before have temperatures changed so rapidly" then why do you provide a link to graph that only account for 22,000 years?
The Earth has been around for billions of years, and you're saying "never before have temperatures changed so rapidly".
For example, researchers consider that Dino-Killing Asteroid Impact Warmed Earth's Climate about 4.5- to 5-degree [C, or 8.1 to 9 degrees F] change in average temperature for 100,000 Years.
This change is higher than it is now. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
But I hope you just worded your thought incorrectly and meant the last 20,000 years, which I can agree with. But 20k years is nothing compared to the entire history of the earth.
And that's even worse.. Your linked article contrasts human emissions only with volcanic emissions. No other non-human emissions are in question there.
And you refer to my quote where I talk about the comparison of human emissions and all non-human emissions. And for all non-human emissions you substitute volcanic activity, which is a clear substitution of the thesis.
Even if we're only talking about carbon dioxide emissions (and there's a lot more going into greenhouse gases) there 42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You substituted all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for. That's not correct.
I don't think I meant that. I'm curious as to why you came to that conclusion?
That's what I'm talking about, and I'm always startled by people who know exactly what's going to happen in the future. I have no problem with people who make probability predictions based on science, but people who say "there will surely be a catastrophe" remind me of Vanga. Who allegedly made the right predictions, but in fact was a common charlatan.
I am an industrial designer and have the required education for this area. More than 10 years working in this field. (Which by the way helped when creating mods) And I just set up my life so that I have enough free time and do everything I like to do outside of work, (that doesn't mean I don't like my job
).I don't have a philosophical degree. Just have an interest in this topic and I read some sorts of books on philosophy and watch content in this area, as well as wrote a few articles.
In our country philosophical education is considered the most useless, and it is needed only for philosophy teachers other position not requires a philosophical education. We also have a big problem with teachers because it is filled with followers of diamat and Marxian school. So if you want to get a good objective education it is better to study on your own. But that doesn't mean we don't have good philosophers. Dugin is world famous, although I do not share his position, but he is very consistent in his views. And there are plenty of equally good philosophers, they're just less well known.
Someone who is right will certainly accept pathetic attempts at excuses like you. I don't even care if you really think wikipedia is a source of apharisms and yourself a source of generally accepted concepts. You're the only one who thinks that and no one else. You have shown your low level of discourse, your appeals to my personality do not interest me. Everything is clear to me about you. This is the end of our dialogue with you.
I think I get it, you don't answer questions when you realise you're wrong. And then you start talking nonsense. Convenient.
It's working!!! Holy sh*t it really works!
I wasn't expecting it, but you were able to give me some kind of answer.
Please do so with all my other questions from now on, as long as we talk in a respectful manner.
And why did you choose those definitions? Why did you choose Le Larousse's definition of science? And whose definition of philosophy I couldn't find. But Wikipedia Source which is usually adopted by a majority of people. But you have chosen other definitions of Science and Philosophy. But the fact that these definitions are different already indicates that these definitions are not generally accepted. You have one definition and wikipedia says different and another source will say a third and so on.
Here's a link to 50 definitions of philosophy, for example. Because it's defined in many different ways.
Or here's a link to an explanation of philosophical positions on different definitions of philosophy. That is, the definitions change depending on your philosophical views on the matter.
Same thing with the definition of science. Why did you choose to define Le Larousse? Not some other kind?
The definition given is reduced to laws or experiments. So Sociology, Anthropology and History are not sciences from this definition. There are no laws and no experiments. That's the first thing that came to mind, there are probably more such disciplines.
For this reason there are many definitions, the broadest ones that include everything become vague, the narrower ones do not include some commonly accepted sciences. This is the problem with definitions of broad concepts like philosophy and science. The problem of demarcation.
You can continue to live in your own world. But in the real world there is no such thing as commonly accepted notions of broad concepts. And I've just clearly demonstrated that.
Can you refer to my questions and answer them? Well no. As could be expected.. I realise I was naive in expecting answers from Avraham. But apparently you think these concepts have a common meaning. Apparently, according to you, it was given to us by aliens or God. What am I supposed to think if you can't answer?
Let me offer you a challenge, this challenge will be difficult for you, so its maybe beyond your comprehension. The challenge is that I will ask you a question and you will answer it directly, let's see if you can do it.
So you think the definitions of science and philosophy are common. Can you cite them?
EDIT cuz maybe he wouldn't understand. (My question means that you need cite the commonly accepted defenitions of science and philosophy. And thats it. You don't need to quote Nicolas Boileau for answering question. You don't need to describe philosophical positions on various issues that I didn't ask about, and you don't have to avoid the question in any other way, I know you like to do that. But just try it for once answering question. I believe you can do it.)
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Why? What are you talking about? I repeat, we live in the real world, there is no such thing as common concepts \ common meaning \ accepted notions in broad concepts. There's a lot of different definitions, and sometimes people give their own.
Why are you deciding for others who can give definitions and who can't?
How do you think these definitions were formed? Because other people came up with them. And where is the boundary of when people have the right to make up definitions and when they don't?
In addition when people give out their definitions often they can coincide with already existing definitions because they have been made up before. How do you solve it? Who had the right to come up with the definition and who did not?
Although apparently you're just going to ignore my questions as usual.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG